The court considered whether a solicitor acting for a potential plaintiff was considered to be an expert for the purposes of the section.
Held: Purchas LJ said: ‘Of course as advice from a solicitor as to the legal consequences of the act or omission is not relevant his contribution can only consist of factual information. Moreover where constructive knowledge is under consideration through the channel of a solicitor this can only be relevant where it is established that the plaintiff ought reasonably to have consulted a solicitor at all. Thus it is for the defendant to establish not only that a solicitor whom the plaintiff might consult would have the necessary knowledge but also that it was reasonable to expect the plaintiff to consult him. This question was considered at some length in the judgment of Hidden J. and we can see no reason to depart from his general approach. .’ and ‘The standard of reasonableness in connection with the observations and/or the effort to ascertain are therefore finally objective but must be qualified to take into consideration the position, and circumstances and character of the plaintiff . . In considering whether or not the inquiry is, or is not reasonable, the situation, character and intelligence of the plaintiff must be relevant’.
Purchas LJ: ‘It was not . . the intention of Parliament to require for the purposes of section 11 and section 14 of the [1980] Act proof of knowledge of the terms in which it will be alleged that the act or omission of the defendants constituted negligence or breach of duty. What is required is knowledge of the essence of the act or omission to which the injury is attributable.’
Judges:
Purchas LJ
Citations:
[1993] 1 WLR 782, [1993] 4 All ER 383
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Nash v Eli Lilly and Co QBD 1991
The court discussed the relevance of knowledge obtainable by the plaintiff’s solicitor for limitation purposes.
Held: Hidden J said ‘My conclusion is therefore that there is no binding authority on whether facts ascertainable by a plaintiff . .
Cited – Powell v National Coal Board CA 28-May-1986
Limitation operates as a defence, and therefore it is for he who sets it up to establish it, and prove that the claim was time barred. Once the initial limitation period had elapsed, it was for the plaintiff to assert that the date of knowledge . .
Cited by:
Cited – Henderson v Temple Pier Company Limited CA 23-Apr-1998
The plaintiff suffered injury walking a gangway onto a moored ship. Her solicitors failed to identify the owner of the ship, misspelling the name and failing to search in the General Register of Shipping and Seamen. The eventual claim was made . .
Cited – O’Driscoll v Dudley Health Authority CA 30-Apr-1998
The plaintiff sought damages for the negligence of the respondent in her care at birth. Years later the family concluded that her condition was a result of negligence. They waited until she was 21, when they mistakenly believed that she became an . .
Doubted – Forbes v Wandsworth Health Authority CA 21-Mar-1996
The plaintiff had a history of circulatory problems in his legs. He underwent surgery losing his leg. The question was when he should have sought advice as to why an attempted by-pass operation had resulted in one leg having to be amputated. He . .
Cited – Adams v Bracknell Forest Borough Council HL 17-Jun-2004
A attended the defendant’s schools between 1977 and 1988. He had always experienced difficulties with reading and writing and as an adult found those difficulties to be an impediment in his employment. He believed them to be the cause of the . .
Cited – Ali v Courtaulds Textiles Ltd CA 26-May-1999
A claimant was not fixed with knowledge of the source of his injury by being referred for medical opinion. He could not be expected to understand the source of this injury without expert assistance, and time did not run until such assistance was . .
Cited – Coban v Aynur Allen F Barnes and Son (a Firm) CA 8-Oct-1996
The defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim for personal injuries as out of time. His explanation for not pursuing inquiries with his solicitor was that he was an over-stayer who feared deportation.
Held: Having good reason to make such . .
Cited – Haward and others v Fawcetts HL 1-Mar-2006
The claimant sought damages from his accountants, claiming negligence. The accountants pleaded limitation. They had advised him in connection with an investment in a company which investment went wrong.
Held: It was argued that the limitation . .
Cited – Buckler v J F Finnegan Ltd CA 21-Jun-2004
The claimant sought damages for personal injuries after ingesting asbestos while employed as a joiner by the defendant. The defendant appealed an order allowing the claim to go ahead despite being out of time. . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v AB and Others SC 14-Mar-2012
The respondent Ministry had, in 1958, conducted experimental atmospheric explosions of atomic weapons. The claimants had been obliged as servicemen to observe the explosions, and appealed against dismissal of their claims for radiation sickness . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation, Negligence
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.186432